Have you ever retired a human by mistake?

(SPOILERS) There seems to be an increasing temperament
of late that it’s okay not to like Blade
Runner really all that much. Which is fine; no motion picture cow should be taken
as sacrosanct. Not even Citizen Kane.
I can’t say I remotely agree, though. Blade
Runner’s a rare picture that only improves with each viewing, even given
the best attempts of Sir Ridders to undermine its ambiguities and greatest
strengths. But that’s the philosophical subtext, never Scott’s strongest suit,
and given the rest of his filmography, it’s almost as if he tripped into it
here. Where Blade Runner truly
excels, exhibiting its director’s talents par excellence, is in world-building.
This is an environment beyond any he has created; the uber-influential used
future is a masterpiece of texture and ambience, a profoundly melancholy
dystopia that nevertheless warmly embraces the viewer in its toxic arms.

And that’s principally because a
fundamental part of what the picture is, every bit as much as the visuals, is
the music. Vangelis’ score is entirely transportive, entirely mood-setting.
It’s impossible to think of the film and not think of its soundtrack. And it’s
like nothing else, standing apart from even the rest of the composer’s
catalogue. From the repeated intonation of the projected geisha billboard to
the sublime Memories of Green, it’s
an amazing, aurally immersive experience that invests one in the cinematic landscape
like no other (except, maybe, on a different level, Morricone’s contributions
to Leone’s spaghetti westerns). It may well be that not going with Vangelis for
the sequel is the right move (we could end up, like The Force Awakens re John Williams, with a pale imitation of past
glories), but Jóhann Jóhannson has some enormous shoes to fill.

Bryant: I’ve got four skin jobs
walking the streets. I need the old Blade Runner. I need your magic.

So much has been written about Blade Runner, I thought I’d take it as
read that the sum of its parts represents a work of unalloyed genius and
concentrate on a few areas I consider worthy of comment, be they ongoing areas
of debate or slight tarnishes to an otherwise spotless copybook (for what movie
is perfect?) One of these is: just how good a Blade Runner is Rick Deckard?

I mean, apart from it being entirely
intentional to portray him as unheroic (he kills two replicants, but they’re
both women, and in neither case is the depiction celebratory – he shoots Zora
in the back, even if she goes down in a tragically beautiful slow motion crash,
and Pris is left thrashing about like a wounded animal – and Batty very
pointedly comments “Proud of yourself,
little man?” There’s nothing seductive about the violence in Blade Runner, in an imitative sense;
only Deckard’s gun is cool, and he doesn’t do anything cool with it).

Even buying that Deckard is out of the
loop, it’s baffling that he’d be entirely clueless about the Nexus 6, that it’s
a model given memories, and which is apparently significantly different in
appearance to the average skin job (which makes you wonder how difficult it mustn’t
have been to detect them previously). He generally appears to be remarkably
ill-informed about the job he’s the best there is at. The philosophical end of
the spectrum seems entirely foreign to him (“How can it not know what it is?”), which again suggests that before
these Nexus 6s came along his job was fairly meat and potatoes. He doesn’t seem
to have met Tyrell before (you’d have thought the industry would take briefings
from those who policed its faulty hardware).

We’re told in the introductory text that,
following the Nexus 6 mutiny, replicants were declared illegal on Earth; does
Deckard know this (in which case, why doesn’t he know about the Nexus 6s?) and
how does it match up with his saying that replicants coming to Earth is unusual
(if this is pre-their being banned, does it mean that off-world replicants
wouldn’t want to come there, so the Blade Runners were only investigating those
that were Earth-bound? Even though the introduction specifically states they
were used off world?) And post banning, do non-Deckard Blade Runners mostly sit
around twiddling their thumbs?

Part of the problem is the feeling Ford
correctly identified when he said Deckard was a detective who didn’t do any
detecting (hence the inclusion of the scales scene, and the photo analysis;
I’ve seen this picture loads of times, and I’m still never quite able to follow
the photo magnification moves into the mirror image. It seems like clever detective work, so I’m
forced to accept it). He’s encumbered with being a receptacle for exposition he
should be aware of ("Memories! You're talking about memories!"). When he asks Rachel if the Tyrell owl is a fake, her “Of course it is” only really needed a “you twat” at the end. Whether or not he’s
just playing dumb, he certainly comes across that way at times.

Rick
Deckard: Say
kiss me.

But it’s also an interesting, interior Ford
performance, inexpressive and unsympathetic; you can see why the suits got
nervous and Scott agreed to add the voice over, because Deckard goes no way
towards meeting the audience halfway. At the centre of the picture is a romance
that operates in an entirely functional manner. There’s no chemistry between
Ford and Sean Young, and no real emotional bond between their characters.

The pivotal scene of “rough love” is
admitted by all concerned to have been misjudged, where Deckard gives the woman
what she doesn’t know she wants, forcibly (alternatively, and thematically, it
might be seen to work; he treats the replicant like everyone else treats
replicants, as a subordinate, a slave, to be done with whatever he so wishes,
to behave like a pleasure model, à la Pris). Michael
Deely suggested it had lost something in the edit, and Scott copped to the
harshness in the way it was pushed probably being his fault, commenting that it
was one of the least successful scenes, and that more words were needed. Katherine
Haber said it “lacked tenderness” and
didn’t come out the way it was meant to. Hampton Fancher observed that “Harrison turned it mean”, and he certainly
has a bestial look on his face during the scene that says the opposite to
Vangelis’ accompaniment.

I always felt Young was the picture’s weak
spot, in a similar manner to Kim Greist in Brazil.
Now I’m not so sure. I think it’s more a problem of Rachel being an entirely
functional plot point; she doesn’t exist in her own right, unlike the other
replicants. He reason to be is to reflect off Deckard. So, while Scott composes
her and comports her stunningly, there’s no real emotional component, and no
real insight into why either she or Deckard are supposed to feel what they feel
towards each other.

Even this is justified to some extent by
what is regarded as the picture’s greatest strength, that the nominal human
relationship is far less resonant that the ones between the replicants, in
particular Roy’s feelings for Pris. The parallel unfolding and insights
regarding these two at JF Sebastian’s digs are affecting and involving in a way
Deckard and Rachel simply aren’t, complete with the weird, skewed, domestic
scenes between the trio, calculatedly manipulating the tragic Sebastian, but
not in an entirely dispassionate manner.

And Hauer is just magnificent, in the way
he holds himself, in the pauses and inflections (Scott called him naturally
theatrical, in a positive way, and he’s quite right), the lingering dialogue;
it’s this kind of element, the willingness to present non-naturalism in a natural
way, that Scott has very much lost.

Roy
Batty: Quite
an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave.

Of course, Batty and Pris are slaves who
know they’re slaves; Deckard isn’t even aware of his inner processes. Whether
or not he’s a replicant, he’s entirely a prisoner of his milieu (“If you’re not cop, you’re little people”).
Even Tyrell is a slave, at least in the unfilmed conception of his character,
where Batty kills his replicant, as
seen, and then travels to the top of the building to find the real corpse of
his designer in a sarcophagus (“It’s not
an easy thing to meet your maker”). The only free agent is enterprise
itself (“Commerce is our goal here at
Tyrell”, Tyrell informs Deckard).

Rachel: Did you ever take the test
yourself?

But the abiding point about Deckard’s is
he/isn’t he a replicant status is one that Scott has rather beaten into the
ground with his active insistence on a definite (and affirmative) answer. As
Hampton Fancher commented in the Dangerous
Days making of documentary “I don’t
think anything should show Deckard’s a replicant. If you think that, you’re
already wrong. It’s just a question mark is what’s interesting” Which is exactly it.

The intimations from Villeneuve that this
aspect will be honoured, and Fancher being the writer of the screenplay, at
least suggested Blade Runner 2049 won’t
get stuck on elucidating this point in tiresomely Scott-like fashion (see him
botching the space jockey in Prometheus
for further evidence). But we’ll have to see. Sequels often talk a good talk
and fail to deliver.

Aspects like Deckard’s glowing red eyes or
deleted dialogue (“You’ve done a man’s
job sir. But are you sure you are a man?”), and even the all-important
unicorn addition run the danger of incrementally underlining the point too
much. I’ve always been sceptical about the need for the unicorn, even though
the Gaf’s origami is meaningless without it; it strays into leading by the
nose.

Indeed, I admire the passion with which
Frank Darabont holds forth his own take, that Deckard’s dream is merely a
result of “thinking about her implanted
memories”, which is very much extra-diegetic, but has its own acceptable
logic. I agree with Fancher, that the idea should be there, but it should
equally have no definite answer. Scott’s “You
don’t get it, you’re a moron” summation is exactly why he’s become such a
banal filmmaker since… well, it started when Legend went belly-up, sadly (Sebastian's toys display a level of incidental playfulness the director just can't replicate when he goes all out for humorous characters in his next movie).

Darabont over-states his case, but
winningly so, and I think he’s absolutely spot-on when he says “The story really only works if Deckard is
human. The entire theme, which is very sophisticated, unravels”; it’s a
journey of a man rediscovering his humanity, and it takes those who are not
human to show him. Sure, have the ambiguity, but that’s intellectual ambiguity.
The emotional resonance is divested from the film if his status is
black-and-white. As Peoples says, though, the picture isn’t answering the
question, it’s asking it; it’s only the blundering Sir Ridders who’s divesting
it of mystique (as he is also doing to his Alien
origins).

I also revisited the original (well the
original international) cut on this occasion of watching The Final Cut, something I hadn’t done in a quarter of a century; I
think the last time was probably a cinema screening (the first time I’d seen it
projected) about a year before I saw the then new “Director’s” cut on the big screen.
I have to admit, the DC never seemed like a night-and-day thing, the way all
the reviews raved about it at the time. I was far more wowed by being able to
get the proper soundtrack, having previously had to make do with a pale
imitation.

And, looking at the deleted scenes, unless
there’s a whole raft of stuff that didn’t end up on the DVD release, there
isn’t really that much thematic content that’s missing from the picture.
Alternate versions of scenes with extraneous and unnecessary dialogue, but only
a few scenes that add real value. And even with those, one can see why they
were excised, as they pin down details where a sense of it all is more
appropriate.

So, the visits to Holden are interesting, but being told the
replicants “aren’t just a bunch of muscle
miners any more, they’re no different to your or me” further undermines the
case of Deckard being particularly good at his job; if the replicants were that
easy to spot, presumably anyone could do it. The scene where Bryant and Gaffe
are observing the second Deckard-Holden conversation is my favourite though,
with Gaffe giving the answers his boss wants to hear (“I spit on metaphysics, sir”), even though that too is ultimately
reinforcing a point that can be readily discerned (the replicants are looking
for God).

Deckard: Replicants weren’t supposed
to have feelings. Neither were Blade Runners. What the hell was happening to
me?

I never thought the original voiceover was
something awful, probably because it was the only version I knew (Del Toro – “I love that voiceover!”) Even now,
revisiting it, I don’t find it that
intrusive (on the other hand, watching some of the deleted scenes, it becomes a
barrage of unnecessary, indigestible over-enunciation). It isn’t like there
isn’t clunky dialogue in the movie itself (“Talk
about beauty and the beast. She’s both” is a line that could easily have come
courtesy of the writer of the narration). I mean, it’s ripe, sure, but there
isn’t even that much of it.

It’s only the ending, as Darabont attests,
that grates horribly, from the forehead slapping obviousness of “I don’t know why he saved my life” to
the logical, thematic and visual atrocity that is the final, beautiful
unsullied landscape of The Shining
footage, and the comfort blanket of Rachel having no termination date (“I didn’t know how long we’d have together.
Who does?”) If anything, the version of the voiceover Scott had in the pipe
was even worse (“I watched him die all
night It was a long, slow thing. He never whimpered, he never quit…”)

Now, though, I’m so familiar with the Director’s and Final Cuts that it does
seem entirely unnecessary. Divested of it, the world and its themes are allowed
to breathe, as is the aural depth. It’s actually understandable, given the
admissions of repeat viewings being necessary to really appreciate the merits
of the picture, that its reception was frosty. That said, you had The Film Year Book calling it an “intriguing mix of high tech and low pulp”
and recognising its awards merit even if came up short (BAFTAs aside). Pauline
Kael’s review recognised its visual prowess, but felt it fell short elsewhere
(which is much as Darabont voiced, although he caveats that it was around the
third time he saw it that its depths were revealed; the brilliance of the scale
disguised what it did with the story).

You actually can’t argue with Kael’s
criticisms of Scott’s approach (or indeed logic holes, such as why Leon needs a
Voight Kampf test if visual records of him are held), but it would be
interesting to learn if she modified her opinion on repeat viewing, if she ever watched it again. I love her
take on Hauer, though (“a shoo-in for
this year’s Klaus Kinski Scenery-Chewing Award”), even if I entirely
disagree that his “gaga performance”
is all wrong. But Kael, in succinctly summing up the picture’s narrative
defects, also highlights that in the wholeness of it all – which, admittedly,
she doesn’t fall for – they don’t matter; it’s simply that her first viewing,
as pertinent as her criticisms are, isn’t the whole story.

Some of Scott’s tweaks on The Final Cut are, like the things Roy
Batty has done, questionable (the added gore seems deaf to a picture that trod
that line just about right, and if “I
want more life, father” is thematically more resonant than “fucker”, you can never unhear the latter
in that scene), but in the balance of things it is seamless and sensitive.

I have to laugh at some of Sir Ridders’
pronouncements, though (“My danger is I
tend to get very cerebral” he noted when discussing how his sensibility was
closer to Fancher’s than Peoples’. Contrast this with Dick’s observation that
Scott’s take on replicants was the opposite of his, in which the replicants
were less than human and reflected Deckard’s lost humanity; “he regarded that as an intellectual idea,
and he was not interested in making an esoteric film”), since they’re at
variance with everything he’s put on screen for the past 20 years. But in Blade Runner you can actually suspend
disbelief that Scott’s a very cerebral guy, if only you ignore his relentless,
post-operative voiceover.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Vampire Academy (2014) My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on
the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct
Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire
Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if
you added vampires to Heathers, you
would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately
inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from
Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish
leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to
surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young
Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel
storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation
crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like,
hoping…

The Avengers 4.3: The Master Minds The Master Minds hitches
its wagon to the not uncommon Avengers
trope of dark deeds done under the veil of night. We previously encountered it
in The Town of No Return, but Robert
Banks Stewart (best known for Bergerac,
but best known genre-wise for his two Tom Baker Doctor Who stories; likewise, he also penned only two teleplays for
The Avengers) makes this episode more
distinctive, with its mind control and spycraft, while Peter Graham Scott, in
his third contribution to the show on the trot, pulls out all the stops,
particularly with a highly creative climactic fight sequence that avoids the usual
issue of overly-evident stunt doubles.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington
2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more
money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more
developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally,
crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the
Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the
universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the
original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on
first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce
a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity
to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as
uproariously as they migh…

Altered Carbon Season One
(SPOILERS) Well, it looks
good, even if the visuals are absurdly indebted to Blade Runner. Ultimately, though, Altered Carbon is a disappointment. The adaption of Richard
Morgan’s novel comes armed with a string of well-packaged concepts and futuristic
vernacular (sleeves, stacks, cross-sleeves, slagged stacks, Neo-Cs), but
there’s a void at its core. It singularly fails use the dependable detective
story framework to explore the philosophical ramifications of its universe –
except in lip service – a future where death is impermanent, and even botches the
essential goal of creating interesting lead characters (the peripheral ones,
however, are at least more fortunate).

Dreamscape (1984)
(SPOILERS) I wasn’t really au fait with movies’ box office performance until the end of the ‘80s, so I think I had an idea that Dennis Quaid (along with Jeff Bridges) was a much bigger star than he was, just on the basis of the procession of cool movies he showed up in (The Right Stuff, Enemy Mine, Innerspace, D.O.A.) The truth was, the public resisted all attempts to make him The Next Big Thing, not that his sly-grinned, cocky persona throughout the decade would lead you to believe his dogged lack of success had any adverse effect on his mood. Dreamscape was one of his early leading-man roles, and if it’s been largely forgotten, it also inherits a welcome cult status, not only through being pulpy and inventive on a fairly meagre budget, but by being pretty good to boot. It holds up.

The X-Files 11.1: My Struggle III
(SPOILERS) Good grief. Have things become so terminal for Chris Carter
that he has to retcon his own crap from the previous season, rather than the
(what he perceived as) crap written by others? Carter, of course, infamously
pretended the apocalyptic ending of Millennium
Season Two never happened, upset by the path Glen Morgan and James Wong, left
to their own devices, took with his baby. Their episode was one of the greats
of that often-ho-hum series, so the comedown was all the unkinder as a result. In
My Struggle III, at least, Carter’s
rewriting something that wasn’t very good in the first place. Only, he replaces
it with something that is even worse in the second.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied
plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable
folly of the panned Pan, I was struck
by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters,
makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed
illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such
investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston
Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely
puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II
tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

The X-Files 11.2: This
(SPOILERS) Glen Morgan returns with a really good idea, certainly one
with much more potential than his homelessness tract Home Again in Season 10, but seems to give up on its eerier
implications, and worse has to bash it round the head to fit the season’s
“arc”. Nevertheless, he’s on very comfortable ground with the Mulder-Scully
dynamic in This, who get to spend
almost the entire episode in each other’s company and might be on the best form
here since the show came back, give or take a Darin.

The Shape of Water (2017)
(SPOILERS) The faithful would have you believe it never went
away, but it’s been a good decade since Guillermo del Toro’s mojo was in full
effect, and his output since (or lack thereof: see the torturous wilderness
years of At the Mountains of Madness
and The Hobbit), reflected through
the prism of his peak work Pan’s
Labyrinth, bears the hallmarks of a serious qualitative tumble. He put his
name to stinker TV show The Strain,
returned to movies with the soulless Pacific
Rim and fashioned flashy but empty gothic romance Crimson Peak (together his weakest pictures, and I’m not forgetting
Mimic). The Shape of Water only seems to underline what everyone has been
saying for years, albeit previously confined to his Spanish language pictures: that
the smaller and more personal they are, the better. If his latest is at times a
little too wilfully idiosyncratic,
it’s also a movie where you can nevertheless witness it’s creator’s creativity
flowing untrammelled once mo…

Split (2016) (SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based
filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of
only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several
of his pictures, including his last, The
Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low
budget horror arena. Split continues
that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to
bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically
uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t
always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage
girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best
intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes
and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the
end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…